Teaching History In Schools With Video Games

Joe writes "There's a story about a Massachusetts company, Muzzy Lane Software, creating a Civ-style simulation computer game to teach history to high school and college students. 'Our view isn't that you take the right video game, stick it in a classroom and everything gets better,' Mr. McCool said. 'But with the right tools, this can significantly enhance learning.'"

Comments

Well...

[Lord Graga]

When I was younger, I had a few of such games. The math ones were super fun, but the ones about history was seriously boring. It was just pictures with some added sound, and then a quiz to "test your knowledge". That wasn't fun.

Re:Well...

[JeffTL]

I guess they never gave you the good stuff, then.

You know, Oregon Trail and the like. Not just pictures, and there weren't quizzes. Just lots of history and geography...and consumer economics.

That reminds me

[kinzillah]

I really miss playing Oregon Trail on the apple II we had in our classroom.

Re:That reminds me

[Erik_the_Awful]

Haha. I miss causing trouble by modifying Oregon Trail to display things like "Girl Rush!!" instead of "Gold Rush!!" and setting your bank account to $999999 instead of $1000.

Re:That reminds me

[Talking Toaster]

I really miss playing Oregon Trail on the apple II we had in our classroom.

So get an emulator, that's what I did.
It is amazing playing all the neat games I played as a kid, only now I get 16 colors instead of just 3.

Personally I recommend AppleWin for those using evil err Windows OS. I'm sure there are emulators out there for Linux, but I've been too lazy thus far to find and install them.

After you have an emulator all you need is a ROM for Oregon Trail and then have lots of fun contributing to the total extermination of the Buffalo, Deer, and small rodents across our great nation.

Re:That reminds me

[Anonymous Coward]

have lots of fun contributing to the total extermination of the Buffalo, Deer, and small rodents across our great nation.

Those were the days...

You killed 274 pounds of meat.
You have room for 2 pounds in the wagon.

Re:That reminds me

[NoData]

That brings back memories for me as well...memories of giggling with glee that I found a loophole to escape to the library to play video games under the guise of "education."

(This guy in TFA seems to get that. They don't call him Mr. McCool for nothing)

I loved the game, but honestly, I learned nothing about the Oregon trail from except that shooting bears is easier than shoot rabbits. And little sisters get sick and die a lot.

Of course

[caston]

I learned everything I need to know about Germans by playing Wolfenstein. ;-)

Re:Of course

[OECD]

I learned everything I need to know about Germans by playing Wolfenstein.

That's actually a good point. These 'games' are great at imparting the creator's bias. It's one of the things I love/hate about 'God Games' (think SimCity tax policy) but it unnerves me when people talk about their educational value.

One safeguard is, of course, open source. It won't get the bias out of the 'games', but at least you can identify it.

(And someone mod parent 'Funny'--the winking emoticon should have been a clue.)

Re:Of course

[Araneas]

I thought about modding it into a lemonade stand game. It's mostly changing description files and coming up with a reasonable rationale for gunfights....

So...

[xenostar]

So, like, the Nazis really made zombie monsters?

Carmen Sandiego?

[ajiva]

Does anyone else remember playing "Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?". I loved that game, and I think its probably one of the biggest reasons for my love of history and computers! I can see good high quality video games easily making people love History and Geography! As a side note there were tons of spin offs from the "Carmen Sandiego" series. There was a "Where in Time" and there was even a TV Show/Gameshow!

Re:Carmen Sandiego?

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

I remember the game, but I was always waiting for the (never released, sadly) sequel, "Where in Hell is Carmen Sandiego?"

Re:Carmen Sandiego?

[Mz6]

Yes.. could we not bring up the TV show again? I still can't get the droning sound of their own "barber shop quartet" out of my head.

Re:Carmen Sandiego?

[Chromium_One]

Where in Hell is Carmen Sandiego

Yes, IWantMoreSpamPlease, "Where in Hell is Carmen Sandiego" really does exist. Blows my mind, thought the hardcore Apple ][ geek who told me about it was pulling my leg.

Re:Carmen Sandiego?

[robi2106]

Hah! That wasn't Barbershop, it was Jazz. Anyone could tell they frequently left off the 7th with the proper chord arrangement and turned it into the Jazz 7th. Not only that but the blatent abuse of chest pounding for percussion revealed their disguise for what it truly was.

jason
But it was still cool at the time.
And yes, I sing barbershop.
How could you tell?

Re:Carmen Sandiego?

[AndroidCat]

Good thing I didn't use mod then eh?

Learned more history from books than class

[Ra5pu7in]

I learned (and still remember) more about history from all the historical fiction books I've read than I ever will from history classes. If they can keep the level of gamer involvement high, this makes great sense.

Imagine playing as Alexander the Great, Julius Cesar, Attilla the Hun, or any other historical figure trying to build an empire. That could be interesting.

Re:Learned more history from books than class

[stanmann]

YOu know what, empires are glorious. The Roman empire had running water. The ottoman empire brought peace and prosperity to the desert, the british empire advanced trade throughout the world, the egyptians built pyramids, etc.

empires are what drives scientific advance because at the geographical heart of the empire there is peace for scientists to study and research.

Re:Learned more history from books than class

[orthogonal]

I learned (and still remember) more about history from all the historical fiction books I've read than I ever will from history classes.

Funny, back when I was studying history, I made a point to avoid reading historical fiction.

The problem is that unless the author has a really good grasp of the history in question and the ability to understand and overcome the prejudices of his own time, those modern prejudices inevitably will distort the history being related in the author's fiction.

Or more concisely, as an English professor once put it to our class, all fiction, regardless of its setting, is about (the issues of) its own time.

Let me make this more concrete with a thought experiment involving not history, but science fiction. You're probably not a vegan, and you probably don't consider meat-eaters to be morally flawed.

Now imagine that, two hundred years from now, everyone is a vegan vegetarian -- and that they grew up the children and grandchildren of vegans, the result of a bloody war begun in 2161 to abolish meat eating. Imagine further that although the vegetarians did win that war, for decades after the war, the resentful losing meat-eaters did their best to surreptitiously continue meat eating, until the vegetarians responded by becoming strict vegans and changing the culture by teaching the moral wrongness of meat eating or any sort of animal exploitation in all the schools.

So two hundred years from now, every school child is taught in elementary school the horrors of the farm and slaughterhouse, and about the valiant war that put an end to the holocausts that supplied the meat aisles of the grocery stores, and the bottom line, that meat eating was not a choice, not just an inefficient allocation of scarce resources, but a disgusting moral wrong.

Now that school child, when he thinks about life in 2004, will find it puzzling, at best, how the vast majority of Americans of our time could go to McDonald's and casually enjoy the results of the abuse, murder, and consumption of an innocent animal. Only the thoughtful children will even get to "puzzled"; most will simply dismiss us as brutes and barbarians.

And the historical novelist of two hundred years from now, who will himself be a confirmed vegan, will write books that, consciously or not, incorporate his moral belief that exploiting animals is wrong, and will tend to cast his sympathetic characters as vegans, or at least as holding vegan attributes, or anachronistically treating their pets as co-equal "animal companions", all out of proportion to the actual number of strict vegans in the real america of 2004.

Just substitute "abolitionist" for "vegetarian" and "Civil Rights supporter" for vegan" in the above, and you'll have an understanding of how difficult it is to write honest historical novels about slavery and racism in America in 1804. In 1804, slavery was considered by some to be a moral wrong (just as some today are vegans), but the vast majority saw it as a political problem or even as a natural way of life endorsed by the Bible. Even of those who in 1804 were against slavery ("vegetarians"), only a very very few believed in racial equality ("vegans"); perhaps the closest they came were proposals to forcibly send ex-slaves back to Africa.

Even those who were ardent supporters of slavery were not necessarily judged to be immoral men for it, unless they seemed to take unnecessary pleasure in being cruel to their slaves; and many slave owners were -- and are -- considered to be great mean -- among them George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

But since the Civil War and the messy, inconclusive aftermath that was Reconstruction and the Jim Crow Era, Americans have made racism -- and by extension, slavery -- into a moral issue that transcends all others. Nowadays, nearly the worst thing you can accuse a public figure of is racism -- only sex crimes against children are more inflammatory.

The result is that mo

Today's lesson...

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

...A Social and Political Overview Of The Post-Castro Cuban-American Experience: What Price Freedom?

"Okay class, if you'll click on the GTA3 icon on your desktop, we'll begin."

Medieval Total War

[kahei]

I learned a lot about European history from that game -- not just facts, but also the understanding that there used to be so much in the eastern half of Europe until the mongols and turks flattened it -- what we tend to think of as Europe now is really just the western 2/5 or so.

Darn those turks, with their fiendishly juicy kebabs!

Re:Medieval Total War

[slackerboy]

Except that the Mongols managed to cross "impassable deserts" and ride around the Himalayas to spread from China all the way to Persia. There were a lot of factors involved, not just geography. Also, Chinese has a number of major dialects not to mention a number of other Asian languages from bordering countries.

For a book that explores why Western Europeans ended up being so successful, I would highly recommend Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. Geography plays a big part in his argument, but not just because of mountains.

Civ

[spellraiser]

... Civ-style simulation ...

- So, Johnny, what did you learn in school today?

- I learned that it is always good to back up your words with nuclear weapons, dad!

Re:Civ

[stanmann]

And this is in opposition to how the real world works or with history??

I think that IF johnny learned about history by experimenting with running or crushing a revolt, and by observing the differences between democracy and despotism that he might be a better citizen.

Wed Night Prod Push

[FortKnox]

I have an OT question. Does Rob sit at the slashdot headquarters on Wednesday and say "It compiles... must be ok to push straight to production!" And then spend all day Thursday trying to fix all the mistakes that simple user testing would have found in a heartbeat? Do you have unit tests? Do you think the users enjoy playing tester Thursdays?

Seriously, there should be AT LEAST a development server, integration server, and staging server before hitting the production server. Its pathetic how unprofessional this 'popular' site is.


Now, to remain on topic, games like Civ3 and stuff teach history to a point, but specifics still need to be taught through books and lectures.

Re:Wed Night Prod Push

[Some Woman]

Do you think the users enjoy playing tester Thursdays?

Yeah really. He should do this on Monday night. "Tester Tuesday" has much more of an alliterative ring to it.

Cool!

[JohnTheFisherman]

-=D34tH_fruM_4B0v3=- just carved up FRANZ_FERDINAND with his green shaft....

World History UT2004. :)

for math, maybe, for history? no way

[Anonymous Coward]

this is utterly useless for history lessons. for math, where each problem has a definite solution, pre-determined format of learning like programmed game may work. (i'm skeptical, though. it always sounds like gimmick to me. nothing beats repeated work with pencil and paper...)

history, there is often no correct answer. even if it's as simple as identifying a person or a date of a historical event, the point is to understand the event in context of others and foster discussions, not to just be able to identify the date or a key figure. i don't see how pre-determined program like games can foster discussions. students will just obsess over getting the right answer and nothing else.

Re:for math, maybe, for history? no way

[sindarin2001]

And this is different from multiple choice tests based off of biased textbooks that oversimplify most everything how?? At least this method is remotely interesting enough to maybe keep the child's attention and is also a medium that children associate with fun (something that's often forgotten in education).

As long as they do post-mortems.

[jstave]

Seems to me that the best value of this sort of simulation is if the class then discusses how and why the simulation differed from the real history.

Noahs Arc 3D

[MrRuslan]

In catolic School.Now thats some sick stuff.
http://diehardwolfers.areyep.com/bunker/noahark.ht m

Dad responds with....

[Mz6]

... yup, that's my boy!

Difficult to say...

[lindsayt]

I'm torn on whether or not this is a good thing. As a professional historian, my immediate response is against this sort of thing - it essentializes history and is likely to remove much of the complexity from history for the students. Games also tend to be quite anachronistic, project contemporary (modern?) views, beliefs and stereotypes back across periods and events preceding these views and beliefs. Video games rarely teach people to think critically and analytically about history.

On the other hand, I have to admit that Civilization (the original DOS game) had a lot to do with getting me fired up about history in high school. I now know (and was vaguely aware then) that the game was (and continues to be) *HORRIBLE* in terms of historical accuracy or methodology, but it *did* get me fired up about history and caused me to sign up for the advanced history classes, which led to me choosing history as a major in college. Had I not gotten so fired up about history when I was 16, perhaps I would not have pursued a PhD in it.

So I suppose I'm on the fence - games such as Civ and Age of Empires mislead people into some horribly skewed views of history, but since they do get people interested in becoming history students, we (professional historians) get a chance to "unlearn" the errors when they take our classes. With any luck, we can keep some of the excitement while doing so. Since college intro history spends much of its time undoing the damage of the (highly political) K-12 school-board-driven history classes anyway, it's not likely to hurt.

Re:Difficult to say...

[Strange Ranger]

> Video games rarely teach people to think critically and analytically about history.

I want to make concise valid points here w/o being trollish.. please bear with me...

It can be argued just as successfully (maybe more so) that history classes do not teach you to think critically and analytically about history.

A few examples: My history classes taught me that Johnny Appleseed was a hero who spread food to the pioneers. In actuality he was their only provider of alcohol. He died in rags but he was filthy rich due to all the real estate claims he owned. He didn't care a bit about wealth and his apples were 99.9% inedible as food. He cared about exploring and getting people drunk. We never learned that.
We also never learned that founding fathers slept with their slaves and grew pot and would scoff at the idea of women voting.

My history classes did me a disservice. Pilgrims did not eat Butterball turkeys. The Civil War wasn't really about slavery. On and on and on. I learned a horribly skewed version of history simply through ommision and candy coating. No computer required.

Oh but we did memorize a litany of dates. Because that's what history is in school, memorizing dates. "Columbus sailed the Ocean blue in 1492 because he had nothin better to do" Actually he sailed the ocean blue because the king of Spain wanted to get him away from the Queen!

If educational games can do anything to help kids understand what it was like to actually live in the past then I think that's wonderful. If it gets them to ask questions instead of memorize dates then it's a blazing success.

This comes from the anecdotal evidence of a former B student in high school history though so take it with a modicum of salt.

Re:Difficult to say...

[lindsayt]

I agree with you, which you probably noticed from my final comment about school boards controlling K-12 history curricula and about college intro history having to essentially "unteach" what's been done before they get there.

There are exceptions of course, but grade school and high school history in America often have little to do with teaching students to think critically about history and to ask difficult questions. History for kids is one of the most politicized subjects, if not the very most. School districts and parents argue that their kids should learn the nice, happy stories they were taught, which have nice morals to them and make us better people.

Of course, much of what you're reciting above is the same thing - essentialized stories, this time designed to refute the old stories. Any time history is about neat little stories, whether positive or negative, it's not getting anywhere. History as a field explores questions and is meant to be argumentative, not narrative. There are no neat, tidy answers that don't essentialize the problem to such an extent as to lose meaning.

Let me give a quick (shabby) example: most grade schools teach that the Civil War was about southern slaveholders who wanted to have slaves. The North protested, and the Northerners fought a holy war to free the slaves. Separately, the traditional southern story of the War Between the States teaches that Southerners were upset that a Federal government was telling them what to do. The war was about states' rights, not slavery. The northerners forced unfair government on the South.

Well, I could say that both of these stories are false, and I would be fairly accurate. However, it's not useful simply to say they are false. The point is, both stories have some elements of truth to them, but the problem is far more complex. Was slavery a central issue? Sure. Was States' rights a central issue? Yes. It also had a bit to do with how people interpreted the founding documents of the United States, and how they viewed the struggle that had been the American Revolution. It was tied up in the fact that the United States were expanding rapidly, and the new states had no stake in the original compromises that had brought about the Constitution. It had a lot to do with the death of an old political party (the Whigs) and the birth of a new one (the Republicans). The reality is, the war came about thanks to a whole lot of factors, and every individual involved had a different way of interpreting what it was about.

One of the interesting questions that emerges from this is, what caused individuals to view the Civil War the way they viewed it? How could two brothers, living in the same city with the same upbringing, come to opposite conclusions about the war and fight on opposite sides? What was at stake for these people, and why did they view the struggle as something worth dying for? How were these many and varied views and opinions united into armies, and how did those in power (journalists, politicians, etc) appeal to people about the war? What does this tell us about Modernity and the emergence of print culture in the middle of the 19th Century?

These are the types of questions that professional historians ask (though I'm a European historian, so I may be ten years out of date on what questions are hot right now on the American Civil War). These questions cannot be addressed by a video game, and they're rarely addressed by grade schools, high schools, or popular history in general.

what if?

[tuxette]

Different actions have different consequences, and it is important to learn how to think and evaluate all the different scenarios that can come up as a result of one or several actions. If you have a choose your own adventure type game, you could see what could have been if historical figures acted differently. It's something worth thinking about.

Re:Civ would've made school more interesting

[Kenja]

Then your teacher could explain how that huy with the spear took out a stealth bomber. You know, just like what heppened in history.

Civ screwed up my sense of history!

[geekpuppySEA]

Wait, I thought the Egyptians created Leonardo Da Vinci's workshop in 1115 A.D., right about the time Caesar signed a peace treaty with the Aztecs. Thank god they didn't include Michelangelo or the recent cleaning of the David would've confused the hell out of me.

This all reminds me of Kim Stanley Robinson's alternate-world-history, The Years of Rice and Salt.

That said, playing the game taught me a hell of a lot about organization, being a naturally-disorg-ey person.

I'm a bit skeptical

[hal2814]

It looks to me like the game is merely setting up a historical event like "you're the British prime minister in 1938. Diplomats in Munich have reached a deal: Germany will be allowed to annex the Sudetenland if it promises that its expansion will go no further." and then you're off to do whatever you want in that context. That's not really teaching history. What if simulated Chamberlain has some balls and doesn't sign the peace treaty with Germany or simulated Hitler keeps his treaty with Russia or soembody playing Roosevelt doesn't get involved in WWII? That's not what happened. That's really no different than C&C: Red Alert.

I just think that the amount of actual history picked up through this will be minimal to the time spent on it. Also, it might actually confuse students learning history because they might not differentiate the historical verion of what happened and the simulated version of what happened. Of course, that's just what I pick up from the article. The actual software might have already addressed these issues.

Re:I'm a bit skeptical

[srleffler]

You seem to be viewing history as just a collection of facts--what happened and when. Unfortunately, high school curricula tend to encourage this kind of thinking. What makes history interesting and useful however is the analysis of why things happened. Encouraging students to explore alternate possible sequences of events may help them to begin to think about history on this deeper level. Of course this depends on the software being well written, with some academic insight going into the alternate possibilities and some guidance provided to make sure the student does learn what really happened.

History is...

[PsiPsiStar]

"History is a selective interpretation of events intended to justify those currently in power.
Memory is the same thing on an individual scale. "

One of my favorite quotes.

What I'd like to see is better history simulation. Get a program that can take certain factors and use it to predict the outcome. After all, knowing math means we can predict the answers to math problems. Shouldn't knowing history mean the same thing? And isn't any school of thought's actual value as a study linked to the predictive value it creates? Or we could just be cynics and say that history is only useful for indoctrination and persuasion....

Re:History is...

[Hiro Antagonist]

History does have predictive value; at least, the real thing tends to. Take Napoleon and Hitler; had Hitler paid any attention to Napoleon's attempt to conquer Russia, he probably wouldn't have tried to do the same thing in the exact same fashion a second time around (with equally bad results) -- some people, such as myself, are quite happy that he screwed up so badly.

Stalin, on the other hand, did pay attention to history; he couldn't get rid of the Greek Orthodox Church (he wanted a totally atheistic state), so he just made them a part of the political structure (thank you, Henry VIII), and then by controlling the church, controlled all the people who wanted to listen to the Church over the State (Stalin).

All of our methods of any sort of prediction do, in fact, rely on history; even science does. The whole concept that the universe tends to behave the same way throughout space and time (homoegenity of space and time) is one of the cornerstones of physics.

The problem lies in revisionist history. Try to use that as a baseline for any sort of prediction, and you'll get garbage, because you put garbage into the front of the equation.

Re:History is...

[mojotooth]

Get a program that can take certain factors and use it to predict the outcome. After all, knowing math means we can predict the answers to math problems. Shouldn't knowing history mean the same thing?

Been reading any Isaac Asimov books lately?

Not the solution

[Haydn Fenton]

Personally I doubt this will help.
I left school about 2 months ago, I seriously doubt using games will help learning much. I'm sure most of us have used those lame maths games at some point. Personally, I didnt learn jack from them, not only were they uneducational, they sucked really bad. Crap graphics, crap sound, no storyline, etc.
For games to actually be used for education, I think they would have to be like games and not some transparent method of trying to get people to pay attention. Which I highly doubt will happen.
If people do make games which are interesting for pupils, they will end up wanting to play the games constantly, and not communicate verbally with other students/teachers, alienating them and making it harder for them once they leave school and enter the real world.

I dont even think the problem is how they try to teach you, its what they teach you. During my whole time at school, they teach you exactly the same stuff year after year. TBH, it's boring crap.

To quote The Hackers Manifesto:
"we've been spoon-fed baby food at school when we hungered for steak... the bits of meat that you did let slip through were pre-chewed and tasteless. We've been dominated by sadists, or ignored by the apathetic. The few that had something to teach found us willing pupils, but those few are like drops of water in the desert."
And it's true..

I fucked school off about 2 months ago, it was shit. The vast majority of what i know has come from TV and the internet, school is complete crap. From what I did learn at school, I'm gonna use about 5% of it in real life - what a waste of my time and government money. Ditch the whole education system. All smart people know it just stops people from learning..
Take this quote from Mr. Einstein himself,
"The only thing that inteferes with my learning is my education"

Re:Not the solution

[sailracer6]

I'm sorry that that's been your experience. I guess that going to private school biased me.

I assume that you're saying that you left high school. Consider going back, no matter how bad your particular place may be. Your criticism of math games betrays a lack of maturity:
I'm sure most of us have used those lame maths games at some point. Personally, I didnt learn jack from them, not only were they uneducational, they sucked really bad. Crap graphics, crap sound, no storyline, etc.

Now, the last math games I used were rote-method arithmetic tutors on the Apple II back in elementary school, which were certainly not exciting (They were challenging). But if you think everything in the world is exciting at the start, you need to rethink what you've done. Math has a lot of uses, some of which you probably want to understand for more useful things: but math is hard, and boring, and requires the student to yoke himself to the task.

You also can't expect teachers to teach you; this is a two-way street. For instance, although the basic tenets of grammar and a wide vocabulary were *given* me in middle school, most other people I know who also received it have lost it. You can't place blame on teachers. In college, I've found this to be even more the case, as I am in classes with seventy-five or more people; even so, it is still entirely possible for me to have a personal experience with the professor -- if I make the effort.

Even Einstein couldn't have gotten his low-level job at the Swiss Patent Office without a high-school diploma. If he didn't have that job, he couldn't have supported himself well enough to have time to come up with the Special Theory of Relativity. Unless you have a really great business plan and a lot of money you can throw at it, go back to school and make the best of it until you graduate. If you're really too good for school, then prove it by winning at the system.

Re:Not the solution

[sYn pHrEAk]

I wish I had mod points for you.

I graduated high school 8th in my class out of a little more than 100, but I feel exactly the same way this guy does. After about 6th or 7th grade, with exception to math, they just keep teaching you the same thing over and over again.

English is a horrible repeat of writing papers every year. My first year in college was exactly the same. I never learned anything new and my paper writing skills never increased after probably 9th grade.

Maybe new things are taught in history, but I'll never remember any of it. It was memorize, ace test, forget what was on test, rinse and repeat. You have to make someone care about history for it to sink into their heads, and frankly I need to worry about now more than back then. I'll never be a king or the President or anything that we're taught about, so how could these situations possibly apply to me? We never learned about recent history that MIGHT apply to us until the end of my senior year, and by then, I was more worried about what sort of prank I could pull at graduation than classes.

At least math had new stuff to it. But most people will never use anything from their math classes in or above Algebra 1.

As for games in the classroom, I doubt it would make much difference. English has no game applications. History would just be a "read the text, click for next scene" type "game." There would be no room for interaction. Math games might be possible but, nothing exciting or that would teach the average student any better.

However, we did play Doom2 in my Cisco Networking class. That was hella fun! But I never did get my CCNA certification. Oh well.

I do remember a game back around 4th or 5th grade that taught map reading skills. You drove around in a car going to different stores. We had printed out maps and drove the car from a first person view. As I turned a corner, I would turn my map so that UP on the map was the same as STRAIGHT on the screen. My teacher was really confused by this.

"This is the right way," she said as she turned my paper so that north pointed up. I then explained to her that it was too confusing that way. That I had to think which was left and which was right, when the way I was doing it was easy to do.

From that day until this day I've always felt superiorly intelligent to my teachers. (Granted I find out I'm wrong sometimes, but not most of the time.)

This was more of a rant than anything but simply put:

Nothing can make education better than getting rid of it can. Hands on experience will always be superior. Not books.

Re:Not the solution

[Haydn Fenton]

I see where youre coming from, and I agree.

I guess school wasnt exactly the right term, I've taken my GSCEs (got an A in maths btw - among other subjects) and was staying on for 6th form (like college, yet we stay at the high school).

I'm not trying to brag or anything, but throughout school I've been in the top class for all subjects (if not all the time, at least at some point), the only reason I didn't stay in the top classes was because I got bored of the same thing being taught over and over and so didn't bother putting much effort in a lot of the time.

I'm not blaming teachers specifically, since I know they only teach what they have been told to teach, I don't know where to place the blame.. possibly the Government. I just think people should have the choice whether they want to attend school or not, take whatever exams they want, whenever they want (with all the students not attending school it's safe to assume exam costs can be covered by the Government) since for a lot of people school doesn't help - people who want to be a builders for example, dont need to know how to cook a cake, or what the name of the green chemicals in leaves are, they only need to know how to build, maybe some maths.

I see school as more of a prison, people are FORCED to go there day after day, year after year. If people had the choice I think a lot more people would be able to get to the level of experteice they want in a much shorter time.

I guess I'm being kind of hypocritical, since I also think people should be forced to a certain degree, to stop people from not attending at all (I know the vast majority of people would never to go school given the choice), then again they will HAVE to learn something at some point to survive.

Argh, I dunno, my argument is kinda falling to peices, it's a complex matter. I just don't agree with how it works at the minute.

Re:Not the solution

[Fryed]

English is a horrible repeat of writing papers every year. My first year in college was exactly the same. I never learned anything new and my paper writing skills never increased after probably 9th grade.


Learning isn't something that just happens, you know. Skills don't increase on their own just by going to class. You have to take responsibility for that. Don't blame your teachers because your writing skills didn't increase. If you were writing well enough, in 9th grade, to get A's in every English course up through freshman level in college, that's great. But that doesn't mean there's no room for improvement. You could have participated in essay writing contests, challenging yourself, improving your skills, all while giving yourself the chance to win prizes and/or scholarships. Or, at the very least, taken the AP tests (even if your school didn't offer the class, you can still take the tests, and if your writing and reading comprehension were good enough that college freshman English wasn't a problem, you probably would have done well on the AP tests)

As for history, it's a pity your school focused on the easy to test date memorization rather than the harder to test, but more important, understanding the reason why those dates were important, and what led up to those events in history. But again, don't blame your teachers because you didn't learn much. That big history book almost certainly had more information than just dates that you could have read yourself, and if not, there are dozens more books to be found in your local library or bookstore. Perhaps you'll never be a king or president, but history is important nonetheless. Learning how the world came to be what it is today helps you to understand politics, which effects you even if you choose to ignore it. It also will help you to understand other cultures. You will almost certainly, at some point in your life, meet someone from another culture, and understanding a bit about that culture might just be helpful to you when that happens.

Certainly, hands on experience is useful. But, if you want to do more with your life than simply reboot the server when it crashes, books should not be overlooked.

It takes a man named "Mr. McCool"

[germinatoras]

..to put games in schools. Now if only their marketing guy ("Mr. McPopular") can convince the principal to buy it.

Re:The Bible thumping children...

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

I think they had to gather all of the animals for Noah's Ark or some shit.

Now we know where they got their inspiration for Pokemon...

Oregon Trail was good...

[xCepheus]

But let's not forget Number Munchers!

"Learn the presidents" game

[nizo]

How about a "learn the presidents" doom-like game? As you run along happily blasting George, Lincoln, and all the other lesser-known presidents, you can learn their names as well as when they were president: "You just killed James Garfield, who was our 20th president, who served for only one year in 1881 before he was (ironically) shot to death". Bonus points for getting them in order!

Re:"Learn the presidents" game

[Hiro Antagonist]

Why do I have a feeling that the Secret Service would frown on any company who sells games to schoolkids that teaches them to shoot leading American political figures?

Why do I also have a feeling that the most of the rest of the world would pitch in for said company's legal defense fund? *grin*

Obligatory Simpsons quote...

[mopslik]

Imagine playing as Alexander the Great, Julius Cesar, Attilla the Hun, or any other historical figure trying to build an empire.

"Hello Lisa, I'm Genghis Kahn! You'll go where I go, defile what I defile, eat who I eat!"

Re:The Bible thumping children...

[Anonymous Coward]

It was called Bible Adventures.

There were a couple of Jesus freaks in my school and that was the only game they were allowed to play on the NES.

It was AWFUL. You had to collect the animals for Noah's Ark, play as David and beat Goliath, escape from the lion's den I think. Oh and you also had to part the water and escape from Egypt or something.

It was so bad it made baby Jesus cry.

Europa Universalis

[Anonymous Coward]

A swedish game company has already done this with a local high school.

The game used is called Europa Universalis 2 and is something which has consumed hundreds of hours of my playing time over the last couple of years.

It's a strategy game that uses historical events to shape the course of the game. The game has military, economy, diplomacy, colonization and religious aspects to it. There are also hundreds of available countries to play with and the game is very moddable through text file editing.

Also, the game was developped in english which makes it available for a wide audience.

http://www.paradoxplaza.com/news.asp?ArticleID=158 &Page=News

Video games CANNOT teach our children...

[potus98]

It the parent's responsability to teach their kids right from wrong! Video games do NOT teach our children how to carjack and... ummm shoot people.... Hmmmm...? oO(But they can teach our kids history and stuff, but ummmm.... hmmmm....)

Well great, now what do I do with all those video games don't teach kids stuff rants?

Computer games and The Alamo

[Zobeid]

I once knew an Englishman who was trying to create an accurate simulation of the Alamo siege. His theory was, he could sell this program to schools all over Texas and make a fortune. It sounded like a good idea. . . He just failed to reckon something: Texas schools have almost no interest in teaching history.

During my 12 years in grade school, we studied the Texas Revolution probably for a total of about 30 minutes. We never got any explanation of why it took place, and our coverage of The Alamo simply repeated the Hollywood myths.

We learned: The Alamo was one of only two battles in the history of the world (the other occurring in ancient Greece) where all the defenders fought to the death.

Historians say: A few defenders escaped during the confusion of the fight, and a few others were captured and later executed by the Mexicans.

We learned: Each Texan killed, on average, four or five Mexican soldiers before he fell.

Historians say: The death toll was probably roughly even on both sides. Santa Anna's army wasn't crippled by the battle.

We learned: The two weeks of time spent laying siege to the Alamo allowed Sam Houston to gather his troops and made ultimate victory possible.

Historians say: The Alamo had no strategic military importance.

My point is that if Texas schools were motivated to teach this story accurately, they certainly wouldn't have needed a computer program to do a better job than this. And the idea that they would spend money on it is fairly laughable.

However. . . If my British friend could have made a simulation program to teach football plays -- he probably could have sold a ton of them to Texas schools and be a millionaire by now. It's all a matter of priorities, you know.

Re:The Bible thumping children...

[stratjakt]

Actually, the game wasn't that bad for an NES title, especially considering it was an unlicensed independant game. It had remarkably good graphics and decent gameplay. It was a decent collection of games, with characters from the Bible.

BTW, you didn't part the red sea, the level was about keeping baby moses safe as he crawled across snakepits and stuff - kind of a gyromite thing. IIRC, that is.

I don't know why people who claim to not be religious get so upset about religious themed stuff. I mean whats the difference between a bible story like Noah's Ark and another legend like Hercules, if you dont believe in either?

Europa Universalis II

[Colazar]

Would be my choice of a game for teaching history.

It focuses more on trade, diplomacy, and research than on combat (there is plenty of combat, but it's relatively abstract). Also, it's focus on a particular time period (~1300 till 1800, if I remember correctly) means that it can be incredibly detailed and accurate. Many of the 'random' events are historical in nature, and tied to particular countries. Also the fact that you can play any of the more than 100 countries in the game (though many are doomed without lots of luck and skill) is pretty neat too.

Far and away the best game of its genre I've ever played. Difficult as hell, too.

OT Great Historical Fiction - Flashman!

[Embedded Geek]

The greatest historical fiction I have ever read is George MacDonald Frasier's Flashman series. He took a villain from Tom Brown's School Days and turned him into a Victorian hero. Flashman is in on all the important events of the era: causing the Charge of the Light Brigade, nearly scalped at Little Big Horn, invading China during the Teiping rebellion, serving on both sides of the U.S. Civil War, spying during the India Rebellion... you get the drift. He of course meets all the important historical figures (Abe Lincoln, Queen Victoria, etc.) but he also touches on hundreds of minor players, such as Allen Pinkerton (changed law enforcement forever), John Brown (the abolitionist and psychotic who triggered the American Civil War) and even Gilbert and Sullivan's "The very model of the modern major general" (who reformed the British Army into its modern mold, but whose name escapes me). By mass, each book is perhaps 10% footnotes, very meticulous and intruiging.

This would be nothing, though, if Flashman weren't fun. He is everything that the Victorians stood against: a drunkard, womanizer, liar, coward, and scoundrel (the books take the form of deathbed confessions, with him setting the record straight to spite his prudish children and relatives). It's delightful fun to see him get the better of sacred institutions of proper society in one chapter and two chapters later see him about to be tortured to death by some horrid villain. Why? Because the bastard has it coming, of course! Even the footnotes are tonuge in cheek, criticizing Flashman's cowardice and bad memory even as the plot is being built upon those flaws.

Flashman is a great antihero. If you have a chance, wander by your local library and give him a whirl. You'll be happy you did.

Try Europa Universalis II or Victoria

[Kinniken]

Both of those games are made by Paradox and are by far the most evolved historical games I've ever seen. Way beyond Civilization.
The EU2 "Grand Campaign", which covers world history from 1419 to 1820, has something like 200 nations in it and tens of thousands of historical events firing.
Sure, the game can quickly become anachronistic especially if you are a good player focusing on extending your empire, but it still strikes an excellent balance between simulating history and playability. I particularly like the way wars of religions are handled, and the crucial concept of national stability and of the necessity for a Casus Belly to declare war if you do not want to suffer from a drop in stability.
Those two games are the only one I would consider for teaching historical facts (and not simply getting students interested).

Worked for me

[fsck!]

Thanks to Medal of Honor: Frontline, I can't watch a WWII documentary without getting chills. I vividly remember storming the beach on D-Day, and fighting house to house during Operation Market Garden. These events happend over 60 years ago, but to me the were just last year. I'm presently about the same age as those that were there. I know it's lame in a way, but thanks to MoH I now have an even grater level of respect for the veterans I know. Realistic and honest depictions of war may actually prove to be educational and valuable.

Educational games, but to what end?

[Animats]

Famous, but controversial, educational games:

• America's Army - teaches you how a U.S. Army infantry squad kills people effectively.
• Deer Hunter - teaches you how to kill harmless herbivores.
• KZ Manager - teaches you how to run a concentration camp.
• Microsoft Flight Simulator - teaches you how to fly into buildings. Used to train actual terrorists.

Re:The Bible thumping children...

[Mr. Bad Example]

> Now we know where they got their inspiration for Pokemon...

"I'm really hoping to get my Jesusaur enough experience to evolve into Saviortron."

Also:

"Abihu, I choose you!"

Problematic (a historian's favorite word) at best

[superultra]

I'm in graduate school with high hopes to become a history professor one day. I also consider myself quite computer literate. With that in mind, I see two obvious problems with Muzzy Lane's software.

First, Muzzy Lane seems to have missed the boat on the "new cultural history," which is a historical interpretational model that is simply history from the bottom-up. If it were really "new" I would understand this negligence, but the movement isn't new at all. The new cultural history is a historical interpretational development that is a solid 20/30 years underway. What I mean by referring to cultural history is that professors and teachers are moving away from the sweeping political and military histories and towards histories of very specific or localized people groups. Unfortunately, Muzzy Lane's "Making History" is not groundbreaking at all. It is very much a computerized form of this antiquated political history, and that's something that history teachers are trying to do less of, not more. Neville Chamberlain is someone I would want to speak as little as possible about in my class. It's the people who elected and empowered Chamberlain that should be the focus on Muzzy Lane's game and my class, not the select few who Muzzy Lane believes have "made history." Using phrases like "everything flows from your decisions" makes me cringe. The game's description implies that the decisions of one or two people influence the lives of everyone else, but developments in history in the last 20-30 years have firmly established that this rarely the case. Political and military history, history from the top-down, is very much out of style and for very good reason.

Secondly, the webpage for "Making History" implies that "this is how it was." They seem to be framing their game within language similar to phrasing ina textbook, which is definitely a bad thing. History textbook language is changing from the "this is the historical truth" towards "this is one historical truth." Muzzy Lane is making up history as they go, as do all historians, but in refusing to admit this students will walk away from "Making History" thinking, "This is what really happened." They promise "historically valid consequences." That's a dangerous perspective to take, one that I certainly wouldn't want to encourage in my class.

The name itself reflects the two problems inherent in their software. It suggests that one person is responsible for "making history," and at the same time it implies that there is one true version of history.

I'm not sure how Muzzy Lane can solve the first problem. I just guessing off the top of my head, but I think that a time period mod for the Sims might be more helpful in the classroom than Muzzy Lane's "Making History." The second problem is merely language, and I think if they qualified their description more and moved away from the textbook-feel in the language it might remedy this. I think that the game is fine and good as a game and merely that. I played the hell out of Pirates! when I was a kid, and it spurred a year of trips from the library with my arms full of pirate books. If "Making History" inspires likewise, then great. But I think what Muzzy Lane is going for is not so much a game as much as something you'd base one or two class periods around. That, to me, is giving too much authority to a company that apparently isn't as up on historical pedagogy as they imply.

Re:Nintendo's work in educational games in China

[PhoenixFlare]

Gupta, fsck off and go spew your false info somewhere else.

Anyone who doesn't know this guy yet, read his post history, or check here. Known troll who always falsely claims to be working at Nintendo, Sega, etc.

The interest in history must come first

[q2k]

From what I've seen homeschooling our kids, an interest or curiosity about history needs to come first if a kid (or anybody) is going to learn. The rote memorization of facts many of us suffered through doesn't work. In our case, my son was hooked on "The Magic Treehouse" books, in which a couple of kids transport through time in a treehouse and end up in the middle of important historical events. That, plus video games got him very interested in history, which made the teaching / learning bit very very easy.

It's no different than contuining education for adults. It's got to be relevant for somebody to be interested. "Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it" is not interesting to kids. Leaning more about westward expansion and what really happened with (Oregon) settlers is interesting to a kid if they have been enjoying the game (or books) already anyway.

Re:The interest in history must come first

[PsychoFurryEwok]

I, from experience, can say that I thuroughly enjoyed Oregon Trail as a kid. I played it often and probably way to much (close to 4 hours a day, what can I say, technology has always been my highest interest from the beginning, it was a way to itnegrate the two). In any case, I believe games in the Oregon Trail fashion are great for teaching kids. Reason being, YOU make your own story but along the way you are littered with facts and you don't even know it. Kids don't want a straight forward game where you have to go and solve the mystery and every time it slaps you with a fact. Kids want a game with good replay value where you make your own adventure and without them even knowing it, they get pounded with the fact. At least, that is how I felt as a kid. :)

Re:The interest in history must come first

[xTown]

Be careful of the Magic Treehouse books. My daughter enjoys them, too, and I enjoy reading them to her, but, for example, the one purportedly about ancient Hawaii was basically made up from whole cloth. It was as if the author's research consisted of watching a half-hour infomercial on Hawaiian vacations, and only paying attention to about half of it. I had to stop about halfway through and say "Look, none of this is right, I can't go on reading this book." It made me wonder about the rest of the series.

MT is okay if you can supplement it with real books on their topics. Which, I guess, just ends up being exactly the same point you make...if you don't have the interest in the subject to say "Wow, I wonder if that was right or not," then you're not going to get anywhere.

Heh.

[Perianwyr Stormcrow]

I learned how to sneak more effectively from Thief.

Other than that, though, I think I mostly got incorrect information from games.

This Might Work

[Mr_Blank]

If the game creators were to use history as the back drop, and force the game play to match the pace of history then students could pick up a lot about history.

For example, maybe make a spy game (Thiefesque) were you work for whichever side and try to help them win. You could work for the colonials, and your job is to find out what ports the British plan to blockade, troop strength and movements, etc. Everything you find out during your "missions" of course is real data from real events in real history.

Another fun game might be an empire game (Civilization like) where you have to produce the weapons of war, get them to the field, and meet the objectives to win within the date parameters set for you. A set of scenarios could be developing, producing, delivering, loading, and then fighting with enough boats to storm Normandy on D-Day. Events of course would be dictated by the real timeline of history including must-do events like when the tech for landing boats became available and random events like how many uboats are out there impeding your shipment deliveries.

I can think of lots of ways history games could go because there so much interesting material to work with. History teaches that people do their best work when in conflict: That's why history books are full of Wars and modern society runs on capitalism.

If anyone wants to hire me to make fun games see my Journal. I would love to design fun games and could make someone a lot of money doing so!

This space for rent. Cheap.

Worked for me

[Fierythrasher]

I learned everything I know about geography and shooting indians from Oregon Trail on an Apple II in grade school. Should apply.

Teaching Video Game History In Schools

[kalashead]

I'm glad someone finally realized the importance of history. There are millions of students growing up not knowing their heritage. We need to start teaching the basics. -Wolfenstein 3d -Dragon Lair -Gobblins -Space Quest -etc...

Video games don't affect people

[Psymunn]

"If Pacman had affected us as kids we'd be running around in dark rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive music."
What? People do that? Oh damn...

Re:Civ would've made school more interesting

[Minna Kirai]

When a group of dudes with spears can take out a tank, your game needs some work.

Not nessecarily. The tank can defeat a large number of spearmen, but it's all a distant abstraction of combat. In reality, that tank would need to be refueled each day, while the primitive troops can go for weeks without eating. Tank's can't kill infantry effectively- they can break them out of fortifications and drive them into hiding, but that's all.

If the tanks are surrounded by hidden enemies, the risk of one of the critical crewmen being ambushed becomes unbeatable.

In real life, of course, tanks would beat spearmen because they'd always be supported by riflemen... but if you failed to do that in the game, then the loss is your own fault.

(Let's drop an M1-A2 into the Amazon jungle and count how many spearmen it takes to beat it...)

Ordinary persons?

[infolib]

In 1938 there were a billion ordinary persons and 500 heads of state. Which ones were more important?

Shouldn't it also be possible to play the wife of the Czech factory worker caught up in the middle of it all?

You left out the best part...

[willjohnson]

It was the only game in school that involved shooting guns. I also liked using humorous names that would end up on tombstones. "MYASS DIED HERE"

Which contintent are you talking about?

[Infonaut]

I'm not sure what you mean by "nearly an entire contintent that thinks it can devote nearly 0% of its resources to its military...".

You're not talking about Africa, I'd guess. Most of the nations in Africa have low GNPs anyway, and they're not exactly trying to exert their influence around the world. They're trying to fight AIDS and keep their people fed.

You're not talking about Australia, as they're involved in the Iraq operation and had a military budget of $7.6 billion for 2003-2004.

You're not talking about Asia, as Russia, China and Japan alone had a combined military budget of $154.6 billion.

You're not talking about South America, as Brazil and Argentina alone spent a combined $11 billion on their militaries.

You're obviously not referring to North America, as the US alone spent $399.1 billion dollars last year and is continuing to spend billions more this year.

Maybe you're referring to Europe. Nope, that can't be right. After all, the military budgets of the top four European spenders (Russia not included) add up to $112.2 billion. That's certainly nothing like 0% of GNP. But maybe you were referring to the fact that European forces are never actually fielded in real-world operations.

Wait a minute. They actually ARE fielded in real-world operations. There are German troops in Afghanistan, and Norwegian troops in Afghanistan. There are British troops dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are Italian, Portugese, Polish, Ukranian, Dutch, Romanian, Danish, and other European soldiers in Iraq.

Their numbers pale in comparison to the number of American troops, but one wonders if the numbers would be higher had the Bush administration not bullied its allies into acquiescence on Iraq, rather than building a strong coalition the way the first Bush administration did. Perhaps the presence of forces from Germany and France, the most militarily powerful and politically influential of the continental nations, would have changed the overall calculus of the war.

But to say that Europeans are seeking diplomatic relevance without putting forth the force to back it up ignores the fact that many European nations are fielding units in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that many more might have been engaged had it not been for the brain-dead approach taken by the Bush administration.

All budget figures from the Center for Defense Information.

I'm not sure video games are the right venue...

[argStyopa]

...since so much of history is about the nuances of personality and sheer human perversity, since Computer games really don't convey that aspect very well.

I personally think boardgames - even something as simple as Diplomacy springs to mind - are far more useful in teaching the complexity of human interaction in international diplomacy, for instance.

I very much wish that everyone who wants to spout their opinion about modern statecraft be forced to play a high-stakes game of Empires in Arms all the way through, with multiple players on a side. Suddenly you'll understand why most states are inherently conservative in their decision making and slow to react to world events.

Although I've had intense political discussions in games like VGA Planets, or pretty much any slow-playing, massively multiplayer game.

Fundamental flaws in historical games

[zuikaku]

There are two common flaws, in my opinion.

1) The game rules don't necessarily reflect reality so much as the developer's concept of how things should work. Things that work in reality may not work in the game. Taxation is a good example. In reality, as the tax rate increases, people use more resources trying to comply at the lowest possible cost and so the amount of tax revenue doesn't grow as fast as one would like. In many games this is handled simplistically, with a higher rate giving you coorespondingly higher revenue. If there are any negative consequences, it is usually something like increased unrest rather than decreased production.

Similarly, reducing the tax rate in the real world tends to increase tax revenue because there is less incentive to hide your income in tax shelters, and the reduced cost of compliance, along with the reduced tax rate, tends to stimulate economic activity. In most games, this merely results in a decreased revenue.

2) Games which lets the player have incredible control over the country he runs distorts the reality behind politics and governments. In many games there is little real difference between how dictatorships and democracies are run. Some games may increase unrest in the democratic countries when the citizens are calculated to disagree with the present policy (or something like that), but otherwise the underlying assumption is that the head of state has complete control of the country. This is especially bad in games where the player decides what industry should be producing, and games where the player actually trades goods to other countries rather than, say, making high-level trade agreements with those countries.

I'm not saying that these games have no value in teaching history, but their simplistic rules (compared to reality), their political bias and the player's ability to control every aspect of the country would definitely need to be considered by the instructor.

Sierra On-Line's Gold Rush

[Mr. Shiny And New]

Gold Rush, from Sierra, was a great game where you played a guy leaving his home in Brooklyn to go to California for the gold-rush in 1848. It was a great game that taught about lots of things in 1848.
The game was not totally historically accurate, however it is the type of game where you still learn a lot and the inaccuracies can be easily explained. For example, in the game its your brother who discovers the gold; at the end of the game you and your brother strike it rich. In real life the man who is credited with discovering gold didn't find a second piece of gold. This kind of inaccuracy doesn't take away from learning about how people lived in the 1840s, or how they travelled west.

The major drawback of this game is that, like any other Sierra quest game, it takes hours to beat and the puzzles are usually not obvious. Good historical knowledge doesn't necessarily help you advance in the game. However, these deficiencies can be addressed if the game was re-done with "history-lesson" in mind. Student activities could include writing about how the game deviates from reality, and why they think that is.

However, I think that using games, even one as good as Gold Rush was, as an educational tool is inappropriate in most circumstances. Once in a while, it may be worthwhile, and games that educate as well as entertain are certainly good for a student's spare time, but I think a teacher should be able to keep children engaged in a history lesson without making them play games all day.

MIT

[monster811]

I worked at MIT last summer in the Games to Teach project. Several games were in development, one of which was Civ III mod that made it more historically accurate. Unfortunately, that never was able to be created due to funding problems (Microsoft ditched us - slashdot bashing anticipated). Also of note was the beginnings of Revolution (briefly mentioned in the article). I am unaware about its current state, but at the point I left, it was to be a total conversion of Neverwinter Nights.

Most of the games were targeted at a middle school level, where the amount of detail in lessons is normally quite low. In this case, the games would be quite useful. For example, a Civilization style game could help provide an overview of events over a wide period of time, while holding the students attention. Other types of games could be used for more in-depth studies. Revolution, for example, had each student play as a person living in a town in the late 1700s. They would experience scripted events based on the actual causes of the revolutionary war. (this may have changed since last summer)